Rodriguez-Macedo v. Bennett

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 AT SEATTLE

g || RIGOBERTO RODRIGUEZ-MACEDO, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00963-RSL 9 Petitioner, v. 10 ORDER DENYING THIRD, FOURTH, AND FIFTH MOTIONS 11 || JASON BENNETT, FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT 12 Respondent. 13 14 This matter comes before the Court on petitioner’s third, fourth, and fifth motions 15 for relief from judgment. Dkt. # 18, 23, and 25. The original petition for habeas relief was 16 7 brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 but construed as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 18 || because petitioner is confined on a state court conviction. Petitioner was given an 19 opportunity to show cause why his claims should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust 20 available state court remedies before seeking federal habeas relief, Dkt. # 4, but failed to 21 respond. Upon review of the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge David W. 23 || Christel and the remainder of the record, the petition was dismissed without prejudice for 24 |! failure to exhaust on September 17, 2024. Dkt. # 6. A certificate of appealability was 25 denied, and judgment was entered that same day. Dkt. # 6 and 7. 26

ORDER DENYING THIRD, FOURTH, AND FIFTH MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - |

I In his various motions for relief from judgment, petitioner asserts many of the same arguments raised in his first and second motions for relief, including: (1) There was a procedural defect in the procurement of the judgment (Dkt. # 18, 5 # 23, and # 25). 6 No defect is identified, and the Court is not aware of any defect in the in forma pauperis review, the order to show cause, the Report and Recommendation, the Court’s review thereof, or the Clerk’s entry of

10 judgment. 11 (2) The Court failed to apply Supreme Court precedent when determining 12 petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim (Dkt. # 18, # 23, and # 25). Neither Magistrate Judge Christel nor the undersigned considered the merits

15 of the petition given that the claims were procedurally barred at this time. 16 (3) Petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability (Dkt. # 18, # 23, and # 25). M7 To obtain a certificate of appealability, a habeas petitioner must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. “Obviously the

20 petitioner need not show that he should prevail on the merits. He has already 21 failed in that endeavor.” Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983). 22 Rather, he must demonstrate that the resolution of the habeas petition is debatable among reasonable jurists or that the issues presented were

95 “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 26 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). Where a petition is dismissed on procedural

ORDER DENYING THIRD, FOURTH, AND FIFTH MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - 2

I grounds, the Court must determine whether “jurists of reason” would debate (1) whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and (2) whether the district court’s procedural ruling was correct. Slack, 5 529 U.S. at 484. The Court has already found that that the dismissal of the 6 petition for failure to exhaust is not debatable among reasonable jurists on the current record. Petitioner offers no reason to reconsider that finding. In addition, petitioner argues that:

10 (4) The Court failed to conduct a de novo review of petitioner’s motion for a Brady 11 order (Dkt. # 18) and motion for an evidentiary hearing (Dkt. # 23). 12 The motions to which petitioner refers were apparently mailed to, and rejected by, the Issaquah District Court. Dkt. # 1-4 at 9 2-3. Petitioner

15 requested that this Court take judicial notice of the motions, Dkt. # 1-8, but 16 they in no way satisfy petitioner’s burden of showing that his claims have M7 been properly exhausted in state court. Providing state courts with the requisite “opportunity” to consider his federal claims means that petitioner 20 must “fairly present” his claims to each appropriate state court for review, 21 including a state supreme court with powers of discretionary review, before 22 seeking federal habeas relief. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (citing Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995), and O'Sullivan v.

95 Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)). Petitioner acknowledged in his petition 26 that he did not appeal his unlawful seizure claim in state court. Dkt. 1-1 at 2—

ORDER DENYING THIRD, FOURTH, AND FIFTH MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - 3

I 3, 5. Thus, even if judicial notice of unfiled documents sent to the Issaquah District Court were appropriate, petitioner’s only ground for relief is unexhausted and ineligible for federal habeas review at this time.

5 (5) The Court failed to conduct a de novo review of petitioner’s objections to the 6 Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 25). Petitioner neither responded to the Order to Show Cause nor objected to the Report and Recommendation.

10 (6) The Court erred in recharacterizing the § 2241 petition as a petition under 11 § 2254 (Dkt. # 25). 12 The Ninth Circuit has held that “28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the exclusive vehicle for a habeas petition by a state prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court

15 judgment.” White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2004), 16 overruled on other grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. M7 2010) (en banc). Petitioner is currently confined pursuant to a state court judgment of conviction. Dkt. 1-1; State of Washington v. Rigoberto 20 Rodriguez-Macedo, Superior Court of Washington for King County Case 21 No. 18-1-06885-8, case information available at https://dja-prd- 22 ecexap1.kingcounty.gov/?q=case (last accessed July 9, 2024). There was no error in reviewing his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

25 26

ORDER DENYING THIRD, FOURTH, AND FIFTH MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - 4

I For all of the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s third, fourth, and fifth motions for relief from judgment are DENIED. This matter is now before the Ninth Circuit. No further relief is available in this venue.

5 6 DATED this 29th day of October, 2024.

8 Robert S.Lasnik 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

ORDER DENYING THIRD, FOURTH, AND FIFTH MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - 5